Appendix C 

Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative 

 and Environmental Resource 
C‐1	

Appendix C 

Summary of Potential Impacts by Alternative and Environmental Resource 

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

Geology and Soils  Negligible effects to unique 

geologic features. Potential 

minor adverse impact 

resulting from a short‐term 

increase in soil erosion, a 

loss of topsoil, soil 

compaction, and runoff. 

Negligible effects to unique 

geologic features. Potential 

minor adverse impact 

resulting from a short‐term 

increase in soil erosion, a 

loss of topsoil, soil 

compaction, and runoff. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Negligible effects to unique 

geologic features. Potential 

minor adverse impact 

resulting from a short‐term 

increase in soil erosion, a 

loss of topsoil, soil 

compaction, and runoff. 

Similar to Alternative 5  Similar to Alternative 5 

Hydrology   Negligible impact to 

surface water flows 

and circulation 

resulting from 

construction activities 

within and/or adjacent 

to waterways (e.g., 

bridges); negligible 

impact to 

groundwater.  

 Permanent, minor 

adverse impact from 

increase in impervious 

surface; minor 

beneficial impact from 

improved stormwater 

management. 

 Negligible impact to 

base floodplains 

resulting from the 

placement of fill; 

negligible impact to 

flood hazard for other 

adjacent areas. 

 Negligible impact to 

surface water flows 

and circulation 

resulting from 

roadway and rail 

improvements (e.g., 

arrival/departure 

tracks, bridges) across 

Noisette Creek and 

Shipyard Creek; 

negligible impact to 

groundwater. 

 Permanent, minor 

adverse impact from 

increase in impervious 

surface; minor 

beneficial impact from 

improved stormwater 

management. 

Negligible effect on 

groundwater recharge. 

 Negligible impact to 

base floodplains 

resulting from the 

placement of fill; 

negligible impact to 

flood hazard for other 

adjacent areas. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

 Negligible impact to 

surface water flows 

and circulation 

resulting from 

roadway and rail 

improvements (e.g., 

arrival/departure 

tracks, bridges) across 

Noisette Creek and 

Shipyard Creek; 

negligible impact to 

groundwater. 

 Minor beneficial 

impact from improved 

stormwater 

management.  

 Negligible effect on 

groundwater recharge. 

 Negligible impact to 

base floodplain 

resulting from the 

placement of fill; 

negligible impact to 

flood hazard for other 

adjacent areas. 

Similar to Alternative 5  Similar to Alternative 5 

Water Quality   Negligible surface 

water quality impacts 

in vicinity of the 

project, downstream, 

and throughout tidal 

segments of on‐site 

creeks from potential 

changes in runoff, 

watershed alterations, 

and increased 

vehicular and rail 

traffic. Possible 

 Similar to the No‐

Action Alternative, 

with a few exceptions. 

Negligible to minor 

short‐term effect on 

TSS, turbidity and 

concentrations of 

heavy metals and 

other toxic 

contaminants due to 

disturbance of 

sediments in Shipyard 

 Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

Impacts to surface 

waters may be slightly 

increased as a new 

bridge would be 

constructed over 

Noisette Creek.  

 Stormwater runoff, 

sediment quality and 

groundwater resources 

impacts similar to 

 Impacts to surface 

water quality, 

stormwater runoff, 

sediment quality, and 

groundwater resources 

similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Impacts to surface 

water quality similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

Impacts to surface 

waters of Noisette 

Creek would be 

negligible to minor and 

limited to those 

associated with a 

short‐term increase in 

stormwater runoff 

 Surface water quality 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action Alternative, 

with a few exceptions. 

Negligible to minor 

short‐term effect on 

TSS, turbidity and 

concentrations of 

heavy metals and 

other toxic 

contaminants due to 

disturbance of 

 Surface water quality 

impacts, stormwater 

runoff, and sediment 

quality impacts similar 

to Alternative 5.  

 Groundwater resource 

impacts similar to 

Alternative 5, but with 

12 fewer potentially 

contaminated sites 

impacted. 

 Impacts to surface 

water quality similar to 

Alternative 5.  Impacts 

to surface waters of 

Noisette Creek would 

be negligible to minor 

and limited to those 

associated with a 

short‐term increase in 

stormwater runoff 

from disturbed lands 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐2	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

beneficial effect on 

DO, TSS, and 

concentrations of 

nutrients, heavy 

metals and other toxic 

contaminants in 

downstream waters. 

Minor and/or major 

direct impacts from 

accidental spills. 

 Negligible effect on 

water quality from 

stormwater runoff 

with implementation 

of current stormwater 

management 

practices. Possible 

beneficial effect on 

DO, TSS, and 

concentrations of 

nutrients, heavy 

metals and other toxic 

contaminants in 

downstream waters

 Minor short‐term 

effect during 

construction activities 

from disturbance of 

sediments and 

associated release of 

pollutants into the 

water column. 

 Negligible effect on 

groundwater recharge. 

Minor direct impact on 

groundwater quality 

from accidental spills. 

Minor effect on 

groundwater quality 

due to excavation and 

use of stormwater 

infrastructure and 

ponds in vicinity of 

contaminated 

groundwater. 

Creek (during new 

bridge construction) 

and Noisette Creek 

(during bridge 

rehabilitation). 

 Stormwater runoff 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action. Beneficial 

effect on DO, TSS, and 

concentrations of 

nutrients, heavy 

metals and other toxic 

contaminants in 

downstream waters 

compared to the 

existing condition. 

 Sediment quality 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action Alternative.  

 Groundwater resource 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action Alternative, 

but with multiple areas 

with groundwater 

monitoring that would 

be impacted and more 

potentially 

contaminated sites.  

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project).  

from disturbed lands 

during upland 

construction activities.  

 Stormwater runoff, 

sediment quality and 

groundwater resources 

impacts similar to the 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

sediments in Shipyard 

Creek (during new 

bridge construction) 

and Noisette Creek 

(during bridge 

rehabilitation).  

 Stormwater runoff 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action with 

beneficial effect on 

DO, TSS, and 

concentrations of 

nutrients, heavy 

metals and other toxic 

contaminants in 

downstream waters. 

 Sediment quality and 

groundwater resource 

impacts similar to the 

No‐Action Alternative. 

during upland 

construction activities. 

 Stormwater runoff, 

sediment quality, and 

groundwater resources 

similar to Alternative 

5. 

Vegetation and Wildlife   Negligible effect on 

vegetative land cover 

classes from habitat 

alteration and 

fragmentation due to 

 Minor adverse effect 

on habitat. Loss of 

habitat from removal 

of vegetation during 

construction but would 

 Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

approximately 236.83 

acres of vegetation 

would be removed, of 

 Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

approximately 214.27 

acres of vegetation 

would be removed, of 

 Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

approximately 235.89 

acres of vegetation 

would be removed, of 

 Minor adverse effect 

on habitat. Loss of 

habitat from removal 

of vegetation during 

construction but would 

 Effect on habitat is the 

same as Alternative 5, 

but approximately 

175.15 acres of 

vegetation would be 

 Effect on habitat is the 

same as Alternative 5, 

but approximately 

197.98 acres of 

vegetation would be 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐3	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

the continuation of 

mixed use and 

industrial land uses.  

 Minor adverse impact 

on the introduction of 

invasive/noxious 

species. Routine 

maintenance (cutting 

and mowing) of 

vegetation could result 

in the proliferation of 

invasive/noxious 

plants present within 

the study area. 

 Negligible effect on 

species displacement. 

Existing and future 

land uses are not 

expected to directly or 

indirectly displace the 

wildlife species 

inhabiting the study 

area. 

 Negligible effect on 

species mortality. 

Existing and future 

land uses are not 

expected to result in 

the mortality of 

species inhabiting the 

study area. 

not degrade the 

stability of animal 

populations; 

approximately 233.71 

acres of vegetation 

would be removed, of 

which 95.5 percent 

would consist of 

previously disturbed 

communities and 4.5 

percent of natural 

communities (10.35 

acres of marsh and 

0.17 acre of marine 

open water) increase 

in habitat 

fragmentation. 

 Minor adverse effect 

from routine 

maintenance (cutting 

and mowing) of 

vegetation could result 

in the proliferation of 

invasive/noxious 

plants present within 

the study area. 

 Minor adverse short‐

term effect on species 

displacement. 

Potential exists for 

direct and indirect 

species displacement 

during construction; 

common species are 

relatively abundant 

and adapted to living 

in close association 

with human activity 

and infrastructure. 

 Minor adverse effect 

on species mortality. 

Potential exists for 

mortality of species 

during construction; 

wildlife would likely 

move away in the 

presence of human 

activity. 

which 94.4 percent 

would consist of 

previously disturbed 

communities and 5.6 

percent of natural 

communities (12.93 

acres of marsh and 

0.36 acre of marine 

open water). 

which 95.14 percent 

would consist of 

previously disturbed 

communities and 4.9 

percent of natural 

communities (10.34 

acres of marsh and 

0.17 acre of marine 

open water). 

which 95.7 percent 

would consist of 

previously disturbed 

communities and 4.3 

percent of natural 

communities (10.07 

acres of marsh); no 

marine open water 

would be impacted.

not degrade the 

stability of animal 

populations; 

approximately 194.32 

acres of vegetation 

would be removed, of 

which 95.7percent 

would consist of 

previously disturbed 

communities and 4.35 

percent of natural 

communities (8.28 

acres of marsh and 

0.17 acre of marine 

open water); increase 

in habitat 

fragmentation. 

 Minor adverse effect 

on introduction of 

invasive/noxious 

species as routine 

maintenance (cutting 

and mowing) of 

vegetation could result 

in the proliferation of 

invasive/noxious 

plants present within 

the study area. 

 Minor short‐term 

adverse effect on 

species displacement. 

Potential exists for 

direct and indirect 

species displacement 

during construction; 

common species are 

relatively abundant 

and adapted to living 

in close association 

with human activity 

and infrastructure. 

 Minor adverse effect 

on species mortality. 

Potential exists for 

mortality of species 

during construction; 

wildlife would likely 

move away in the 

presence of human 

activity. 

removed, of which 

95.2 percent would 

consist of previously 

disturbed communities 

and 4.83 percent of 

natural communities 

(8.28 acres of marsh 

and 0.17 acre of 

marine open water). 

 Potential for 

introduction of 

invasive/noxious 

species, species 

displacement, and 

species mortality 

would be the same as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

removed, of which 

96.0 percent would 

consist of previously 

disturbed communities 

and 4.0 percent of 

natural communities 

(8.00 acres of marsh); 

no marine open water 

would be impacted. 

 Potential for 

introduction of 

invasive/noxious 

species, species 

displacement, and 

species mortality 

would be the same as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐4	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

Waters of the United 

States 

Future construction and/or 

other human activities could 

adversely impact Waters of 

the U.S. within the Waters 

of the U.S. Study Area; any 

permanent or temporary 

impacts would require a 

permit from the Corps. 

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Direct impacts from 

fill/shading activities 

during construction 

would result in the 

permanent impact of 

approximately 15.84 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S., including 6.65 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 8.01 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 

1.14 acres of tidal 

open waters, and 0.04 

acres of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

would result in the 

permanent impact of 

approximately 17.92 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 8.86 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 7.64 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 

1.35 aces of tidal open 

waters, and 0.07 acres 

of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

would result in the 

permanent impact of 

approximately 11.81 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 6.66 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 3.86 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 

1.14 acres of tidal 

open waters, and 0.15 

acres of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

would result in the 

permanent loss of 

approximately 15.98 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 6.66 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 8.22 acres of 

freshwater wetlands,  

1.03 acres of tidal 

open waters, and 0.07 

acres of non‐tidal open 

waters. 

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Would result in the 

permanent loss of 

approximately 14.75 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 5.29 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 8.36 acres of 

freshwater wetlands,  

1.01 acres of tidal 

open waters, and 0.09 

acres of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Similar to Alternative 5 

but would result in the 

permanent loss of 

approximately 10.82 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 5.29 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 4.35 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 

1.01 acres of tidal 

open waters, and 0.17 

acres of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

 Major adverse impacts 

to Waters of the U.S.  

 Similar to Alternative 5 

but would result in the 

permanent loss of 

approximately 15.01 

acres of Waters of the 

U.S. including 5.32 

acres of tidal salt 

marsh, 8.68 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 

0.92 acre of tidal open 

waters, and 0.09 acres 

of non‐tidal open 

waters.  

Protected Species   Negligible effect on 

habitat alteration/ 

fragmentation with 

implementation of 

avoidance and 

minimization measures 

due to the 

continuation of mixed 

use and industrial land 

uses. 

 Potential exists for 

direct and indirect 

species displacement 

during future land use 

activities but minor 

effects with 

implementation of 

avoidance and 

minimization 

measures. 

 Negligible effect on 

habitat alteration/ 

fragmentation of 

Protected Species with 

implementation of 

avoidance and 

minimization measures 

during construction 

activities. 

 Potential exists for 

direct and indirect 

short‐term species 

displacement effects 

during construction; 

but negligible with 

implementation of 

Applicant’s prescribed 

avoidance and 

minimization measures 

in combination with 

the additional Corps 

mitigation measures 

listed in Section 4.6.12. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Habitat alteration/ 

fragmentation impacts 

would be same as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Species displacements 

impacts would be 

similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

in‐water construction 

activities would be 

limited to Shipyard 

Creek. 

 Negligible effect on 

habitat 

alteration/fragmentati

on of Protected 

Species with 

implementation of 

avoidance and 

minimization measures 

during construction.  

 Potential exists for 

direct and indirect 

effects during 

construction, but 

minor effects with 

implementation of 

Applicant’s prescribed 

avoidance and 

minimization measures 

in combination with 

the additional 

potential mitigation 

measures listed in 

Section 4.6.12. 

Same as Alternative 5.   Habitat alteration/ 

fragmentation impacts 

would be same as 

Alternative 5. 

 Species displacements 

impacts would be 

similar to Alternative 

5, but in‐water 

construction activities 

would be limited to 

Shipyard Creek. 

Essential Fish Habitat   Negligible effect on 

loss of Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) that 

currently exists within 

the study area. 

 Negligible effect on 

species displacement. 

Potential exists for a 

small impact (in 

number, quantity, or 

extent) to federally 

 Minor impact on loss 

of EFH as 

approximately 7.79 

acres of EFH, including 

6.65 acres of Estuarine 

Emergent Marsh (EEM) 

and 1.14 acres of 

Intertidal 

Flats/Estuarine Water 

Column (IF/EWC) 

would be impacted. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

approximately 10.24 acres 

of EFH, including 8.86 acres 

of EEM, 0.03 acre of oyster 

reefs/shell banks (OR/SB), 

and 1.35 acres of IF/EWC, 

would be impacted.  

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

approximately 7.80 acres of 

EFH, including 6.66 acres of 

EEM and 1.14 acres of 

IF/EWC, would be impacted. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

approximately 7.69 acres of 

EFH, including 6.66 acres of 

EEM and 1.03 acres of 

IF/EWC, would be impacted. 

 Minor impact on loss 

of EFH as 

approximately 6.30 

acres of EFH, including 

5.29 acres of EEM and 

1.01 acres of IF/EWC, 

would be impacted. 

 Minor 

Potential exists for a 

small impact to 

federally managed 

Same as Alternative 5 

except approximately 6.30 

acres of EFH, including 5.29 

acres of EEM and 1.01 acres 

of IF/EWC, would be 

impacted. 

Same as Alternative 5 

except approximately 6.24 

acres of EFH, including 5.32 

acres of EEM and 0.92 acre 

of IF/EWC would be 

impacted. 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐5	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

managed species 

during construction, 

such as brown and 

white shrimp, which 

are relatively abundant 

and adapted to living 

in close association 

with human activity 

and infrastructure. 

 Minor impact to 

species displacement 

as potential exists for a 

small impact to 

federally managed 

species during 

construction, such as 

brown and white 

shrimp, which are 

relatively abundant and 

adapted to living in 

close association with 

human activity and 

infrastructure. 

 Negligible impact to 

oysters with the 

implementation of 

water quality BMPs 

and the potential for 

future oyster 

settlement and 

propagation with the 

new pilings. 

species during 

construction, such as 

brown and white 

shrimp, which are 

relatively abundant 

and adapted to living 

in close association 

with human activity 

and infrastructure. 

Traffic and Transportation  No impacts   Negligible short‐term 

impact during 

construction to I‐26, I‐

526, US 17, and at‐

grade rail crossings; 

minor short‐term 

adverse impact during 

construction to North 

Charleston 

intersections. 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on majority of 

I‐26 corridor in the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038; 

beneficial or adverse 

permanent impact on 

a few segments due to 

a LOS change. 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on majority of 

I‐526 corridor in the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038; 

beneficial or adverse 

permanent impact on 

a few segments due to 

a LOS change. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except: 

 Slightly different 

number of impacted 

North Charleston 

intersections; and 

 Major permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038 at‐

grade crossing 

operations as the 

Alternative would 

increase the frequency 

and number of train 

occurrences in North 

Charleston. 

Additionally, two new 

at‐grade crossings 

would be created. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

for:  

 Impacts to at‐grade rail 

crossings are similar to 

Alternative 1 but with 

different number of 

new at‐grade rail 

crossing locations (2‐

Meeting Street and 

Spruill Avenue at 

Kingsworth Avenue) 

and operations. 

Additionally, two new 

at‐grade crossings 

would be created. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

for:  

 Impacts to at‐grade rail 

crossings are similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) but 

with different at‐grade 

rail crossing locations 

and operations as this 

Alternative would have 

double (8/day) the 

number of train 

occurrences on the 

southern rail 

connection as 

Alternative 1. 

 Negligible short‐term 

impact during 

construction to I‐26, I‐

526, US 17, and at‐

grade rail crossings; 

minor short‐term 

adverse impact during 

construction to North 

Charleston 

intersections. 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on majority of 

I‐26 corridor in the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038; 

beneficial or adverse 

permanent impact on 

a few segments due to 

a LOS change. 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on majority of 

I‐526 corridor in the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038; 

beneficial or adverse 

permanent impact on 

a few segments due to 

a LOS change. 

Same as Alternative 5 

except for:  

 Major permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038 at‐

grade crossing 

operations as the 

Alternative would 

increase the frequency 

and number of train 

occurrences in North 

Charleston. 

Additionally, two new 

at‐grade crossings 

would be created. 

Same as Alternative 5 

except for: 

 Impacts to at‐grade rail 

crossings are similar to 

Alternative 5 but with 

different at‐grade rail 

crossing locations and 

operations as this 

Alternative would have 

double (8/day) the 

number of train 

occurrences on the 

southern rail 

connection as 

Alternative 5. 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐6	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on the opening 

year 2018 and design 

year 2038 US 17 

operations as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

would have minimal 

influence on the US 17 

traffic volumes. 

 Minor permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038 

North Charleston 

intersection 

operations. Traffic 

patterns would change 

but slightly more 

intersections would 

degrade than improve 

operations.  

 Moderate permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

major permanent 

adverse impact design 

year 2038 at‐grade 

crossing operations as 

the Proposed Project 

would increase the 

frequency and number 

of train occurrences in 

North Charleston. 

Additionally, one new 

at‐grade crossing 

would be created. 

 Negligible permanent 

impact on the opening 

year 2018 and design 

year 2038 US 17 

operations as 

Alternative 5 would 

have minimal influence 

on the US 17 traffic 

volumes. 

 Minor permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

design year 2038 

North Charleston 

intersection 

operations. Traffic 

patterns would change 

but slightly more 

intersections would 

degrade than improve 

operations.  

 Moderate permanent 

adverse impact on the 

opening year 2018 and 

major permanent 

adverse impact design 

year 2038 at‐grade 

crossing operations as 

Alternative 5 would 

increase the frequency 

and number of train 

occurrences in North 

Charleston. 

Additionally, one new 

at‐grade crossing 

would be created. 

Land Use and 

Infrastructure 

 Negligible impact on 

land use change. No 

change in land use 

designation required. 

 Negligible impact on 

displacement of 

structures. No non‐

Palmetto Railways 

owned or specially 

designated structures 

would have to be 

displaced or 

demolished. 

 Major permanent 

impact on land use 

change. Rezoning of 

the residential area 

along the western 

boundary of the ICTF 

and rezoning of 

portions of the project 

site from Institutional 

future land use. 

Comprehensive Plan 

amendment also 

required. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

additional off‐site roadway 

and rail improvements 

would cause the 

displacement of approxi‐

mately 26 structures. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

additional off‐site roadway 

and rail improvements 

would cause the 

displacement of 

approximately 25 

structures. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

 Negligible impact on 

land use change. No 

change in land use 

designation required. 

 Major permanent 

impact on 

displacement of 

structures. 

Approximately 33 non‐

Palmetto Railways 

owned or specially 

designated structures 

would have to be 

displaced or 

Similar to Alternative 5 

except additional off‐site 

roadway and rail 

improvements would cause 

the displacement of 

approximately 16 

structures. 

Similar to Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐7	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

 Negligible impact on 

infrastructure and 

utilities. No impacts as 

upgrades to service are 

not anticipated. 

 Major permanent 

impact on 

displacement of 

structures. 

Approximately 88 non‐

Palmetto Railways 

owned or specially 

designated structures 

would have to be 

displaced or 

demolished. Additional 

off‐site roadway and 

rail improvements 

would cause the 

displacement of 

approximately 23 

structures. 

 Negligible short‐term 

impact on 

infrastructure and 

utilities as any 

interruption of service 

to local area residents 

and businesses would 

be less than 12 hours. 

demolished. Additional 

off‐site roadway and 

rail improvements 

would cause the 

displacement of 

approximately 14 

structures. 

 Negligible short‐term 

impact on 

infrastructure and 

utilities as any 

interruption of service 

to local area residents 

and businesses would 

be less than 12 hours. 

Cultural Resources  No effect   Adverse effect on 

Charleston Naval 

Hospital (CNH) Historic 

District from

demolition of 

contributing elements 

of the Historic District, 

and altered setting of 

the District. 

 No effect on 

Charleston Naval Yard 

(CNY) Historic District, 

Charleston Navy Yard 

Officer’s Quarters 

(CNYOQ) Historic 

District, or other 

historic properties 

outside the Charleston 

Naval Complex (CNC). 

 Adverse effect from 

altered setting for 

U.S. Marine Corps 

(USMC) Barracks. 

No effect  Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

 Adverse effect on CNH 

Historic District and 

CNY Historic District 

from demolition of 

contributing elements 

of the Historic 

Districts, and altered 

settings of the 

Districts. 

 Adverse effect on the 

CNYOQ Historic District 

from altered settings. 

 Adverse effect on 

USMC Barracks from 

demolition of NRHP‐

listed building and 

altered settings of the 

District. 

 No effect on other 

historic properties 

outside the Charleston 

Naval Complex (CNC).  

Same as Alternative 5  Same as Alternative 5 

Visual Resources 

and Aesthetics 

 No impact to scenic 

views. 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact to 

scenic views from 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact to 

scenic views from 

 Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project).   

 No impact to scenic 

views. 

 Major, permanent 

adverse impact on 

viewer sensitivity to 

 Same impact to scenic 

views as Alternative 5. 

 Same impact to scenic 

views as Alternative 5. 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐8	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

 Minor adverse impact 

to scenic resources 

through the removal of 

mature trees. 

 Potential minor 

beneficial impacts to 

visual quality and 

character from 

redevelopment efforts 

as vacant parking lots 

are other areas are 

replaced with newer 

built structures and 

associated 

landscaping.  

 No impact from light 

and glare. 

renovation and slight 

elevation of existing 

rail over Noisette 

Creek along Noisette 

Boulevard. 

 Major, permanent 

adverse impact to 

scenic resources from 

the removal of 

contributing elements 

of the CNH Historic 

District and mature 

trees, as well as the 

altered setting of the 

USMC Barracks. 

 Major, permanent 

adverse impact to 

visual quality and 

character from 

demolition of 

contributing elements 

of the CNH historic 

district and altered 

setting of the USMC 

Barracks.  

 Moderate, permanent 

adverse impact from 

new vertical elements in 

the VRSA (wide‐span 

gantry cranes and high 

mast lighting). 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact to 

visual quality and 

character from 

renovation and slight 

elevation of existing 

rail bridge ) over 

Noisette Creek. 

 Negligible impact to 

visual quality and 

character from the 

arrival/departure 

tracks to the south of 

the ICTF. 

 Negligible impact to 

visual quality and 

character from the 

realignment of Hobson 

Ave/Bainbridge Ave 

and construction of 

construction of a new 

rail bridge over 

Noisette Creek along 

Spruill Avenue. 

 Minor adverse impact 

to scenic resources 

from the removal of 

mature trees. 

 Similar impacts to 

visual quality and 

character as described 

under Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project), but 

no impact to CNH 

historic district and 

USMC Barracks.  

Similar impacts from 

light and glare as those 

described under 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Same impacts to scenic 

resources as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Similar impacts to 

visual quality and 

character as described 

under Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project), but 

without renovated rail 

bridge over Noisette 

Creek. 

 Similar impacts from 

light and glare as those 

described under 

Alternative 1 (Proposed 

Project), but negligible 

effect resulting from 

nighttime train head 

lamps due to lack of 

curvatures (and 

affected residences) 

on the southern 

arrival/departure 

tracks. 

scenic views from 

renovation and slight 

elevation of existing 

rail bridge near 

Noisette Boulevard 

over Noisette Creek 

and placement of the 

ICTF adjacent to 

Noisette Creek. 

 Major, permanent 

adverse impact to 

scenic resources from 

the removal of 

contributing elements 

to the CNH and CNY 

historic districts, the 

USMC Barracks, and 

mature trees, as well 

as the altered setting 

associated with the 

CNH, CNY, and CNYOQ. 

 The overall impacts to 

visual quality and 

character would be 

similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project), 

including the major, 

permanent adverse 

impact to visual quality 

and character from the 

demolition of 

contributing elements 

of to the CNH and CNY 

historic districts, 

demolition of the 

USMC Barracks, and 

altered settings of the 

CNH, CNY, and CNYOQ. 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact from 

light and glare 

associated with high 

mast lighting, but 

negligible effect 

resulting from 

nighttime train head 

lamps due to lack of 

curvatures (and 

affected residences) 

on the southern 

arrival/departure 

tracks. 

 Same impacts to scenic 

views and resources as 

Alternative 5. 

 The overall impacts to 

visual quality and 

character would be 

similar to Alternative 

5. 

 Similar impact from 

light and glare as those 

described under 

Alternative 5. 

 Same impacts to scenic 

views and resources as 

Alternative 5. 

 The overall impacts to 

visual quality and 

character would be 

similar to Alternative 

5. 

 Similar impact from 

light and glare as those 

described under 

Alternative 5. 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐9	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

the drayage road; 

minor, permanent 

adverse impact from 

the removal of the 

Viaduct Road 

Overpass. 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact to 

visual quality and 

character from the 

construction of the 

earthen berm adjacent 

to the Chicora‐

Cherokee 

neighborhood. 

 Minor, permanent 

adverse impact from 

light and glare 

associated with the 

new 85‐foot tall mast 

lighting that will be 

illuminated from dusk 

to dawn, and from 

nighttime train head 

lamps. 

Noise and Vibration  No impacts   Negligible traffic noise 

impacts with negligible 

beneficial effect for 

several streets.  

 Minor to moderate rail 

noise impact along 

several segments due 

to increased rail 

activity and new track 

builds.  

 Negligible rail vibration 

impact.   

 Minor to moderate 

construction noise 

impact in the vicinity 

of noise berm.  

 Minor to Moderate 

exterior daytime 

operational noise 

impact and major 

exterior nighttime 

operational noise 

impact. Refer to 

subsection 4.12.3.5 for 

information on 

exterior to interior 

 Negligible traffic noise 

impacts similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Minor to moderate rail 

noise impact along 

several segments due 

to increased rail 

activity and new track 

builds. Major rail noise 

impact for up to 4 land 

uses along one future 

track segment. 

 Negligible rail vibration 

impacts similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project), 

except potential 

impact for two or 

three receptors near 

curved track of S‐line. 

 Construction impacts 

and Operational 

impacts are similar to 

the Alternative 1  

(Proposed Project).  

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project), except 

additional potential for rail 

vibration impact for one or 

two receptors near the 

curved track at Kingsworth 

Avenue. 

Similar to Alternative 

(Proposed Project) except 

minor to moderate rail noise

impact along several

segments due to increased 

rail activity in the southern 

alignment.  

 Negligible traffic noise 

impacts with a minor 

to moderate impact 

along one future road.  

 Minor to moderate rail 

noise impact along 

several segments due 

to increased rail 

activity and new track 

builds. Moderate rail 

noise impact along one

future track segment 

 Negligible rail vibration 

impact. 

 Minor to moderate 

construction noise 

impact in the vicinity 

of construction. 

 Negligible exterior 

daytime impact and 

moderate to major 

exterior nighttime 

impact. Refer to 

subsection 4.12.7.5 for 

information on 

exterior to interior 

Similar to Alternative 5 

except  

 Minor to moderate rail 

noise impact along 

several segments due 

to increased rail 

activity and new track 

builds and moderate 

rail noise impact along

one new build future

segment.  

 Additional potential 

for rail vibration 

impact for one or two 

receptors near the 

curved track at 

Kingsworth Avenue. 

Similar to Alternative 5 

except  

 Minor to moderate rail 

noise impact along 

several segments due 

to increased rail 

activity in the southern 

alignment and 

moderate rail noise

impact along one new 

build future segment.  

 Major additive noise 

impact at Port drayage 

road (Traffic + Rail). 

Negligible daytime 

impact and major 

nighttime impact for 

additive noise for 

Noisette Boulevard 

(Traffic + Operations). 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐10	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

noise reduction. 

Interior noise levels 

are not anticipated to 

disrupt sleep.  

 Negligible additive 

noise impacts (Virginia 

Avenue ‐ Traffic + Rail 

Noise) and minor to 

moderate additive 

noise impacts (St. 

Johns Avenue ‐ Traffic 

+ Rail Noise) 

 Negligible additive 

noise impacts (Virginia 

Avenue and Spruill 

Avenue ‐ Traffic + Rail 

Noise) 

noise reduction. 

Interior noise levels 

are not anticipated to 

disrupt sleep. 

 Negligible additive 

(daytime) impacts and 

moderate to major 

additive (nighttime) 

impacts (Noisette 

Boulevard –Traffic + 

Rail Noise), Negligible 

[Virginia Avenue 

(Traffic + Rail Noise)] 

and major additive 

impacts (Port drayage 

road – Traffic + Rail)  

Air Quality   Impacts from 

construction emissions 

of criteria pollutant 

would be minor short‐

term adverse. 

 Operational criteria 

pollutant emissions 

would be less than 1 

percent of Study 

Area’s criteria 

pollutant emissions. 

Potential impacts 

would be minor 

permanent adverse. 

 Criteria pollutants 

emitted, along with 

the existing and 

projected criteria 

pollutants, would not 

put the Tri‐County area 

into non‐attainment 

for any criteria 

pollutants and the 

National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) would remain 

in compliance. 

Potential impacts 

would be minor 

permanent adverse. 

 Non‐diesel particulate 

matter (DPM) 

hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions from 

would each equal less 

 Impacts from 

construction emissions 

of criteria pollutants 

would be minor short‐

term adverse because 

emissions would be 

short‐term and spread 

out over 5 years. 

 Operational criteria 

pollutant emissions 

would be less than one 

percent of study area’s 

criteria pollutant 

emissions. Potential 

impacts would be 

minor permanent 

adverse. 

 Criteria pollutants 

emitted, along with 

the existing and 

projected criteria 

pollutants, would not 

put the Tri‐County area 

into non‐attainment 

for any criteria 

pollutants and the 

NAAQS would remain 

in compliance. 

Potential impacts 

would be minor 

permanent adverse. 

 Non‐DPM HAP 

emissions would each 

equal less than one‐

tenth of one percent of 

Similar to Alternative 1  Similar to Alternative 1  Similar to Alternative 1   Impacts from 

construction emissions 

of criteria pollutants 

would be minor short‐

term adverse because 

emissions would be 

short‐term and spread 

out over five years. 

 Operational criteria 

pollutant emissions 

would be less than 1 

percent of study area’s 

criteria pollutant 

emissions. Potential 

impacts would be 

minor permanent 

adverse. 

 Criteria pollutants 

emitted from 

Alternative 5, along 

with the existing and 

projected criteria 

pollutants, may put 

the Tri‐County area 

into non‐attainment 

for the NO2 1‐hour 

NAAQS. Potential 

impacts would be 

minor adverse. 

 Non‐DPM HAP 

emissions would each 

equal less than one‐

tenth of 1 percent of 

the total HAPs emitted 

in the Study Area. 

Similar to Alternative 5  Similar to Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐11	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

than one‐tenth of 1 

percent of the total 

HAPs emitted in the 

study area. Potential 

impacts would be 

acceptable. 

 Potential excess cancer 

risk would be within 

the acceptable range. 

Impacts from cancer 

risk would be 

acceptable.  

 The maximum 

noncancer hazard 

would be below 1. 

Potential impacts from 

noncancer hazard 

would be negligible. 

the total HAPs emitted 

in the Study Area. 

Potential impacts 

would be acceptable. 

 Potential excess cancer 

risk would fall within 

the acceptable range. 

Impacts from cancer 

risk would be 

acceptable.  

 The maximum 

noncancer hazard 

would be below 1. 

Potential impacts from 

noncancer hazard 

would be negligible. 

Potential impacts 

would be acceptable. 

 Potential excess cancer 

risk would fall within 

the acceptable range. 

Impacts from cancer 

risk would be 

acceptable.  

 The maximum 

noncancer hazard 

would be below 1. 

Potential impacts from 

noncancer hazard 

would be negligible. 

Climate Change   The No‐Action 

Alternative results in 

short term 

construction period 

greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and 

potential short‐term 

impacts would be 

minor adverse. 

 Annual Operational 

GHG Emissions 

Inventory would be 

36,060 MT CO2e. The 

No Action Alternative 

would be the least 

efficient. Long‐term 

effects would be major 

adverse. 

 The predicted sea level 

rise would not cause 

detectable changes to 

on‐site structural 

integrity at the 

Proposed Project and 

River Center project 

sites, nor would it 

cause predictable 

impacts to human 

health and safety. 

Impacts due to sea 

level rise at the 

Impacts due to sea 

level rise at the 

 Because the GHG 

emissions from the 

construction phase 

provide the needed 

infrastructure for the 

increased efficiency in 

the transport of goods, 

the short‐term impacts 

would be minor 

adverse. 

 Annual Operational 

GHG Emissions 

Inventory would be 

30,948 MT CO2e. The 

Proposed Project 

would be the most 

efficient. Long‐term 

effects would be minor 

adverse. 

 The predicted sea level 

rise would not cause 

detectable changes to 

on‐site structural 

integrity at the 

Proposed Project site, 

nor would it cause 

predictable impacts to 

human health and 

safety. Impacts would 

be negligible. 

 The Proposed Project 

is predicted to get a 

level of storm surge 

Similar to Alternative 1  Similar to Alternative 1  Similar to Alternative 1   Because the GHG 

emissions from the 

construction phase 

provide the needed 

infrastructure for the 

increased efficiency in 

the transport of goods, 

the short‐term impacts 

would be minor 

adverse. 

 Annual Operational 

GHG Emissions 

Inventory would be 

32,208 MT CO2e. 

Alternative 5 would be 

more efficient than the 

No Action Alternative 

and nearly as efficient 

as the Proposed 

Project. Long‐term 

effects would be minor 

adverse. 

 The predicted sea level 

rise would not cause 

detectable changes to 

on‐site structural 

integrity at the River 

Center site, nor would 

it cause predictable 

impacts to human 

health and safety. 

Impacts would be 

negligible. 

Similar to Alternative 5  Similar to Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐12	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

Proposed Project and 

River Center project 

sites would be 

negligible. 

 The Proposed Project 

and River Center sites 

are predicted to get a 

level of storm surge 

inundation that could 

damage on‐site 

structures to the point 

of altering their 

structural integrity, 

move and damage 

heavy equipment, and 

pose a threat to 

human health and 

safety of people on‐

site. Impacts on the 

Proposed Project and 

River Center project 

sites would be major. 

inundation that could 

damage on‐site 

structures to the point 

of altering their 

structural integrity, 

move and damage 

heavy equipment, and 

pose a threat to 

human health and 

safety of people on‐

site. Impacts would be 

major. 

 The River Center site is 

predicted to get a level 

of storm surge 

inundation that could 

damage on‐site 

structures to the point 

of altering their 

structural integrity, 

move and damage 

heavy equipment, and 

pose a threat to 

human health and 

safety of people on‐

site. Impacts would be 

major. 

Hazardous, Toxic, and 

Radioactive Waste 

 Eight active monitoring 

sites with 

contamination (two 

requiring investigation) 

for a total of 10. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impacts to soil 

(contamination) from 

excavation activities 

(after compliance with 

the Navy’s permitting 

process, RCRA Permit 

#SC0 170 022 560 and 

all applicable laws for 

testing and disposal of 

contaminated soils). 

Ten known active 

contamination sites 

have been identified in 

the areas associated 

with the No‐Action 

Alternative. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impacts to 

groundwater 

(contamination) from 

dewatering in 

excavation areas (after 

compliance with the 

 Eight active monitoring 

sites with 

contamination (15 

requiring investigation) 

for a total of 23. 

 Approximately 107 

buildings requiring 

demolition/

renovation. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impacts to soil 

(contamination) from 

excavation activities 

(after compliance with 

the Navy’s permitting 

process, RCRA Permit 

#SC0 170 022 560 and 

all applicable laws for 

testing and disposal of 

contaminated soils). 24 

potentially 

contaminated sites 

would be impacted. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impacts to 

groundwater 

(contamination) from 

dewatering in 

excavation areas (after 

Similar to Alternative 1 but 

with: 

 Eight active 

monitoring, 14 

requiring investigation 

for a total of 22 

contaminated sites. 

 Approximately 114 

buildings requiring 

demolition/renovation 

 Impact approximately 

114 buildings impacted 

through demolition of 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures). 

Similar to Alternative 1 but 

with: 

 Eight active monitoring 

sites with 

contamination, three 

requiring investigation 

for a total of 11. 

 Approximately 113 

buildings requiring 

demolition/renovation

. 

 13 fewer potentially 

contaminated sites 

would be impacted. 

 Impact approximately 

113 buildings through 

demolition of 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures). 

Similar to Alternative 1    Eight active monitoring 

sites, with 

contamination (16 

requiring investigation) 

for a total of 24. 

 Approximately 47 

buildings requiring 

demolition/renovation 

 Impacts to 

groundwater similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project); but 

fewer areas with 

existing groundwater 

contamination and 

monitoring wells. 

 Impact from 

demolition of 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures) similar to 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project); 82 

fewer buildings 

impacted. 

Similar to Alternative 5 but 

with: 

 Eight active monitoring 

sites with 

contamination (four 

requiring investigation) 

for a total of 12. 

 Approximately 49 

buildings requiring 

demolition/

renovation. 

 Impact 49 buildings 

through demolition of 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures).  

Similar to Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐13	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

Navy’s permitting 

process, RCRA Permit 

SC0 170 022 560, and 

all applicable laws for 

treatment and disposal 

of dewatering effluent. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impact from 

demolition of 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures). 

 Potential for minor 

and/or major adverse 

impacts from 

accidental spills). 

compliance with the 

Navy’s permitting 

process, RCRA Permit 

SC0 170 022 560, and 

all applicable laws for 

treatment and disposal 

of dewatering effluent. 

Multiple areas with 

groundwater 

monitoring would be 

impacted and 

potentially 

contaminated sites 

would be impacted. 

 No anticipated 

involvement with the 

Macalloy Superfund 

Site. 

 Potential minor 

adverse impact from 

demolition of 

approximately 107 

structures with 

asbestos and/or 

metals‐based paints 

(after survey and 

applicable abatement 

measures). 

 Potential for minor 

and/or major adverse 

impacts from 

accidental spills 

resulting from use of 

above ground storage 

tanks (ASTs) (diesel 

fuel), storage of other 

minor amounts of 

solvents on the 

premises, and from 

containers containing 

hazardous materials.  

 Potential for minor 

and/or major adverse 

impacts from 

accidental spills 

resulting from use of 

ASTs (diesel fuel), 

storage of other minor 

amounts of solvents on 

the premises, and from 

containers containing 

hazardous materials.  

Socioeconomics 

and Environmental 

Justice 

 Negligible as there are 

no impacts to 

economic and business 

resources. 

 Minor adverse impact 

from private developer 

construction. 

 Negligible impact to 

community safety and 

emergency response 

 Major short‐term and 

indirect long‐term 

benefit to local and 

regional economy; 

minor indirect adverse 

impact to local 

businesses adjacent to 

project (access, 

relocations, and 

aesthetics).  

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except: 

 Additional minor 

adverse impact to 

mobility and access 

from the creation of 

cul‐de‐sac at St. Johns 

Avenue and McMillian 

Avenue, 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except: 

 Businesses north of 

Milford Street would 

be avoided. 

 Location of 2 new at‐

grade crossings are 

located at Meeting 

Street and Spruill 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). except: 

Localized moderate impacts 

to emergency response. 

 Major short‐term and 

indirect long‐term 

benefit to local and 

regional economy; 

direct adverse impacts 

to businesses on River 

Center project site; 

major direct adverse 

impacts to businesses 

relocations along 

Similar to Alternative 5 

except: 

 Businesses north of 

Milford Street would 

be avoided. 

 Approximately 8 

additional residential 

displacements from 

Union Heights 

neighborhood. 

Similar to Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐14	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

as any delay would be 

similar to existing 

conditions. 

 Major impact from 

displacement of 

Sterett Hall and 

surrounding arts 

facilities. 

 Negligible as there is 

no physical impact in 

terms of new barriers 

to the elderly and 

handicapped. 

 Environmental Justice 

considerations are not 

applicable (no Federal 

action). 

 Minor short‐term 

adverse impacts from 

construction; minor 

adverse access impacts 

for Chicora‐Cherokee 

residents; minor 

adverse mobility 

impacts from new at‐

grade rail crossings 

and increased delay at 

intersections and at‐

grade crossings. 

 Potential minor 

adverse emergency 

response time impacts 

due to delay at at‐

grade crossings 

compared to No‐

Action however, 

alternate routes are 

available. Potential 

minor safety impacts 

due to additional 

conflict points at 

Meeting Street at‐

grade crossing. 

 Negligible impact from 

displacement of 

Sterett Hall and 

surrounding arts 

facilities as they would 

be displaced with or 

without Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Major adverse impacts 

to Chicora‐Cherokee 

neighborhood from 

approximately 134 

residential 

displacements; minor 

to moderate adverse 

impact from visual and 

noise impacts.  

 Minor indirect impact 

from exacerbation of 

housing and 

population loss. 

 Minor adverse impacts 

to Olde North 

Charleston and minor 

to moderate impacts 

 Indirect minor 

adverse impacts 

(noise, light and 

glare) to residents 

and businesses 

along Spruill 

Avenue and Bexley 

Street corridor. 

 Additional 33 

residential 

relocations within 

Olde North 

Charleston 

neighborhood. 

Avenue at Kingsworth 

Avenue. 

 Localized moderate 

impacts to emergency 

response. 

 Approximately 8 

additional residential 

displacements from 

Union Heights 

neighborhood. 

Noisette Boulevard 

and the Lowcountry 

Innovation Center; 

minor adverse impact 

to properties adjacent 

to project (truck 

traffic, noise, 

aesthetics). 

 Minor, long‐term 

adverse impact to 

east‐west mobility for 

residents and 

businesses within the 

study area; Closure of 

McMillan Avenue 

would result in a minor 

adverse impact from 

the disruption of 

CARTA Route 104. 

 Potential for major 

adverse impact to 

emergency response, 

as a result of delay at 

at‐grade crossings and 

limited east‐west 

access to the study 

area. Potential for 

minor safety adverse 

impacts due to 

additional conflict 

point at Meeting 

Street at‐grade 

crossing. 

 Negligible impact from 

displacement of 

Sterett Hall and 

surrounding arts 

facilities (they would 

be displaced with or 

without Alternative 5). 

 For the Chicora‐

Cherokee 

neighborhood, overall 

noise impacts would 

be minor to moderate 

adverse from rail and a 

localized major 

adverse noise impact 

from rail and drayage 

road. Chicora‐

Cherokee 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐15	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

to Howard Heights, 

Union Heights, and 

Windsor 

neighborhoods from 

noise. 

 Negligible impact in 

terms of new barriers 

to the elderly and 

handicapped. 

 Environmental Justice 

considerations are 

applicable: Major 

adverse impact from 

displacement of 

approximately 134 

residential units would 

result in a 

disproportionately 

high and adverse 

impact to Chicora‐

Cherokee 

neighborhood. 

neighborhood would 

have negligible visual 

impacts. 

 Major adverse impact 

to River Center 

neighborhood from 

displacement of 

approximately 62 

residential units 

(includes 

approximately 60‐unit 

West Yard Lofts).  

 Barriers to the elderly 

and handicapped are 

the same as 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

 Environmental Justice 

considerations are 

applicable: Major 

adverse impact from 

displacement of the 

approximately 60‐unit 

West Yard Lofts low‐

income housing 

development would 

result in a 

disproportionately 

high and adverse 

impact. 

Human Health and Safety   Negligible impact on 

worker safety, drinking 

water quality, 

hazardous materials. 

 No impact from noise 

and vibration. 

 Minor impact from air 

quality. 

 Negligible impact from 

hazardous materials due 

to implementation of 

BMPs during 

construction and 

operation. 

 Negligible impact for 

community safety and 

emergency response 

times as impact from 

delay would be similar 

to existing conditions. 

 Negligible impact on 

worker safety, drinking 

water quality, 

hazardous materials, 

traffic noise and 

vibration. 

 Minor to moderate 

impact (several areas) 

from rail noise, 

construction noise 

(short‐term), and 

operational noise 

(daytime). Major 

operational noise 

impact (nighttime). 

Additive noise impacts: 

negligible [Virginia 

Avenue (Traffic + Rail 

Noise)] minor to 

moderate [St. Johns 

Avenue (Traffic + Rail 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project). 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

with localized moderate 

impacts to emergency 

response. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) except 

with localized moderate 

impacts to emergency 

response and no additive 

noise impacts. 

 Negligible impact on 

worker safety, drinking 

water quality, 

hazardous materials, 

ICTF operational noise 

(daytime) and 

vibration. 

 Minor to moderate 

impact (several areas) 

from traffic noise, rail 

noise, and construction 

noise (short‐term). 

Moderate to Major 

exterior nighttime 

impact. Additive noise 

impacts: negligible 

(daytime) moderate to 

major (nighttime) 

[Noisette Boulevard 

(Traffic + Operations)], 

negligible [Virginia 

Similar to Alternative 5 with 

additional localized moderate 

impacts to emergency 

response. 

Similar to Alternative 5 with 

additional localized moderate 

impacts to emergency 

response. 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐16	

Resource Area No Action 

Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project)  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4  Alternative 5  Alternative 6  Alternative 7 

 No impact from light 

and glare. 

Noise). Overall impact 

to human health is 

minor with noise 

mitigation measures. 

 Minor permanent 

adverse impact to air 

quality (criteria 

pollutants and the 

NAAQS would remain 

in compliance).  

 Potential impacts from 

non‐DPM HAP 

emissions would be 

acceptable. Potential 

excess cancer risk and 

cancer risk would be 

acceptable.  Potential 

impacts from 

noncancer hazard 

would be negligible. 

 Potential for minor 

adverse impact on 

emergency response 

times and minor 

indirect adverse 

impact to community 

safety. 

 Negligible effect from 

high mast lighting, 

minor, permanent 

adverse impact from 

light and glare 

associated with 

nighttime train head 

lamps to residential 

structures along 

curvatures of the track. 

Avenue (Traffic + Rail 

Noise)], and major [Port 

drayage road (Traffic + 

Rail)]  

 Minor impact to air 

quality (Tri‐County 

area may be in non‐

attainment for NO2).  

 Potential impacts from 

non‐DPM HAP 

emissions would be 

acceptable. Potential 

excess cancer risk and 

cancer risk would be 

acceptable.  Potential 

impacts from 

noncancer hazard 

would be negligible. 

 Potential for major 

impact to emergency 

response times and 

minor impact to 

community safety  

 Negligible effect from 

high mast lighting, 

negligible effect from 

nighttime train head 

lamps due to lack of 

curvatures (and 

affected residences) 

on the southern 

arrival/departure 

tracks. 

Section 4(f)/6(f)  No constructive or 

permanent use of any 4(f) 

resource. No conversion of 

6(f) resources. 

 Uses of Section 4(f) 

resources: permanent 

use of CNH Historic 

District from 

demolition of 

contributing elements 

of the historic district 

and permanent use of 

the parade ground of 

the USMC Barracks. No 

conversion of 6(f) 

resources. 

Not prudent (per 23 C.F.R. 

774.17). See Section 4.18 for 

analysis and full details. 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

Same as Alternative 1 

(Proposed Project) 

 Uses of Section 4(f) 

resources: permanent 

use of CNH Historic 

District, CNY Historic 

District, and USMC 

Barracks from 

demolition of 

contributing elements 

of the historic district. 

Use of CNYOQ Historic 

District from altered 

setting of the historic 

district. No conversion 

of 6(f) resources. 

Same as Alternative 5.  Same as Alternative 5 
Appendix C, cont’d 

C‐17	
Affected	Environment